A small group of homeowners expressed very negative views about another homeowner in their neighborhood on social media. For example, they asserted that she was a "problem board member," "insane," and "a plague." She sued them for defamation. The Washington Court of Appeals recently affirmed the summary dismissal of her lawsuit.
The Court initially noted that the plaintiff was required to show that the defendants' statements were "provably false" in order to prevail. It next observed that the medium and context in which the statements were published and the audience to whom they were published must be taken into account. The Court went on to rule that the defendant's statements were "opinions, substantially true, or not shown to be provably false" and that a social media audience "expects the speaker to use exaggeration, rhetoric, or hyperbole" and is "likely to view such representations with an awareness of the subjective biases of the speaker."
Later in its opinion, the Court concluded that the association's board of directors had the authority to adopt a fine and fee schedule pursuant to state law even though the applicable covenants did not explicitly grant the board that power and only described enforcement as being "by proceedings at law or in equity." The Court interpreted those covenants in that manner in order to "protect the homeowners' collective interest in having covenants enforced."
The Court initially noted that the plaintiff was required to show that the defendants' statements were "provably false" in order to prevail. It next observed that the medium and context in which the statements were published and the audience to whom they were published must be taken into account. The Court went on to rule that the defendant's statements were "opinions, substantially true, or not shown to be provably false" and that a social media audience "expects the speaker to use exaggeration, rhetoric, or hyperbole" and is "likely to view such representations with an awareness of the subjective biases of the speaker."
Later in its opinion, the Court concluded that the association's board of directors had the authority to adopt a fine and fee schedule pursuant to state law even though the applicable covenants did not explicitly grant the board that power and only described enforcement as being "by proceedings at law or in equity." The Court interpreted those covenants in that manner in order to "protect the homeowners' collective interest in having covenants enforced."
